As the current republican primary process unfolds, I find one parallel to be very interesting. The liberal media has smeared all candidates except one, Mitt Romney. They've gone out and manufactured fake out of context videos about "big black clouds", they've said things where blatantly false when they were blatantly true, and yet one candidate stands alone as unsmeared. He's not getting great press, don't misunderstand. But he's not the subject of the media war that we've come to all be familiar with.

Why? The media absolutely love and adore Barack Obama, so it's not for lack of zeal. AND! Mitt Romney is rumored to be the biggest threat Obama faces. Yet the media don't smear him. If Romney really were this huge threat, then the media should be smearing him the most.

Now, enter the republicans and the effect that all of this has. What do we see in the media from a republican standpoint? Conservatives are controversial, Bachmann is controversial, Perry is controversial. But Romney? No, he's not controversial.

The media's lack of a hard core smear campaign against Romney is having a huge success in the republican primary field. This is how the media is picking our candidate. And let us not forget, it was a very short time ago that Rumsfeld came out and announced that he was dropping his subscription to the NY Slimes. So we know that republicans are reading the liberal media. There's a lot of republicans out there doing this.

And what of this relationship between republicans and liberal media? It's an abusive relationship. Very much like what a battered wife goes through. The media laughs at, impugns, denegrates, and always puts conservatives at third rate, with an exceptional few republicans(such as Romney) who are allowed to be second rate. But we saw how the media plays it's hand with second rate republicans. It kills them in the general election. Ask President McCain how well that went.

The media is going to pick our candidate if all of us can't get more republicans in our influence to put the newspaper down. Stop financially funding your political enemies. Put the newspaper down! Turn your TV off. Stop funding your political enemies. Turn your TV off! And you must get everybody in your family to do the same.

If you want to defeat Obama, defeat the media. Unplug as many republicans as you can from the liberal media's reality distortion field.

Since the title is biased, I’m going to point it out. women, according to numerous studies, are the most common perpetrator of Domestic Violence, and to anyone who thinks that it’s unimportant because of their size, they are also 3x more likely to use a weapon. So the title would more accurately read “Battered Husband Syndrome” since the “Battered Wife” (as a trend/epidemic) is a liberal urban myth, pushed by the feminist agenda. I just thought I’d point that out, since conservatives generally prefer not to engage in the liberal sensationalism, and perpetuating big government fiction.

-——————I have completely ignored the liberal media for many years. Their bias is all but obvious to perhaps a stump.————————

I’m glad. You and I both.

But as I mentioned, Rumsfeld.

Their bias is not so obvious to all. And some pretty smart people. I don’t agree with Rumsfeld on everything, that’s entirely irrelevant to the topic. He’s been funding his own political enemies for all these years. That’s a big problem.

-——————I still tune in occasionally to gather intelligence (defined here as information pertaining to the enemy).———————

Well, Ok. This is the exception to the rule. I also occasionally tune into liberal media so that I know what the talking points of the day are.

My original post is about republicans who still believe the liberal media. And there are a whole lot of them out there.

I hope both of you, and anybody else who sees this, is working to get your family, friends, neighbor’s dog, somebody, anybody, to stop listening to these propagandists who claim to be journalists.

9
posted on 09/29/2011 9:13:46 AM PDT
by Halfmanhalfamazing
( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)

Thanks for the explanation. I watch / listen to some libtards just to get a chuckle or hope to be there when their head explodes (not hoping for it, just don’t want to miss it). I watch some PMSNBC like Softball and that dolt O’Donnell. Some I can’t watch or listen to because they aren’t even funny in their idiocy and hatred.

And occasionally, they might have a decent idea, or at least a kernel, where there might be a decent reason to compromise. Not often, but it’s possible, and I said compromise as in meeting a common goal, not rolling over.

While this is off on a tangent, I have never seen a study on “verbal abuse.” “Verbal” is neither battery nor violence, so I can’t say how that fits in to the analogy. It would be illogical in any event since men primarily stonewall (refuse to speak or interact), which is the opposite of verbal abuse (the case you’re making), because it lowers their physiological response (heartrate, breathing, etc.). I suppose that could be deemed as “verbal” but since you said “said the things” I presume you’re referring to speaking and not a lack thereof.

As to the poster’s original point, he makes a good one. The summation being:

“The media is going to pick our candidate if all of us can’t get more republicans in our influence to put the newspaper down. Stop financially funding your political enemies.”

We can refuse to promote liberal media in any way, shape or form (I guarantee they will either be bailed out or nationalized, anyway, but that is another battle). The big picture is, well, BIG, and it’s important we not fund voluntarilly, those who will come back to bite us.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.